'Bullying' Sir Philip Green loses human rights court case over 'Me Too scanda...
What
'Bullying' Sir Philip Green loses human rights court case over 'Me Too scanda...
Key points
- The retail tycoon has lost a privacy case at the European Court of Human Rights Retail giant Sir Philip Green suffered a humiliating defeat after judges ruled his human rights were not breached when he was named in Parliament as the holder of an injunction.
- The former Topshop boss previously obtained a court injunction preventing a newspaper publishing allegations of misconduct made against him by five ex-employees who had agreed to keep the details of their complaints confidential under non-disclosure agreements (NDA).
- The Croydon-born former Arcadia Group chairman, 73, took a case to Strasbourg over the use of parliamentary privilege to make information subject to injunctions public.
- However, he was named in Parliament as the businessman behind the injunction by Labour peer Lord Hain who used parliamentary privilege - which allows members to speak freely and their comments to be reported by the media without fear of being sued.
- The Labour Peer accused Sir Philip of 'bullying and abusive behaviour' Sir Philip's lawyers told justices in Strasbourg that Lord Hain's statement made his breach of confidence claim futile, violating his right to a fair trial, and that the statement also breached his right to privacy.
Who
Lado Chanturia; Registrar Simeon Petrovski; Arcadia Group
When
'Bullying' Sir Philip Green loses hu
Where
Croydon; Strasbourg; Monaco
Why
The retail tycoon has lost a privacy case at the European Court of Human Rights Retail giant Sir Philip Green suffered a humiliating defeat after judges ruled his human rights were not breached when he was named in Parliament as the holder of an injunction.
How
The former Topshop boss previously obtained a court injunction preventing a newspaper publishing allegations of misconduct made against him by five ex-employees who had agreed to keep the details of their complaints confidential under non-disclosure agreements (NDA).
Impact
A majority also found that his complaints brought under Article 6, the right to a fair hearing, and Article 13, the right to an effective remedy, were "inadmissible".
Metrics
Metrics Dictionary
A percentage indicating the degree of political bias detected in the article content.
0-20%: Minimal to no detectable bias
21-40%: Slight bias present but generally balanced
41-60%: Noticeable bias but attempts balance
61-80%: Strong bias present
81-100%: Extreme bias detected
A score from -1 to 1 measuring the emotional tone of the content.
-1.0 to -0.6: Strongly negative emotional content
-0.6 to -0.2: Moderately negative tone
-0.2 to 0.2: Balanced or neutral emotional tone
0.2 to 0.6: Moderately positive tone
0.6 to 1.0: Strongly positive emotional content
Indicates how certain the analysis is about its bias assessment.
0-33%: Limited confidence in assessment
34-66%: Reasonable confidence in assessment
67-100%: High confidence in assessment
Describes the political orientation of the content based on language and perspective.
Left
Generally favors progressive policies and significant government intervention
Center-Left
Moderately progressive with balanced government involvement
Neutral
Balanced perspective without clear political leaning
Center-Right
Moderately conservative with limited government involvement
Right
Generally favors conservative policies and minimal government intervention
0
Please Login to comment